VIIKING TECHNOLOGY AND TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI Vs DCIT CC-2(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT DB-II), ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM
&
SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM

ITA No.4450/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year :2009-10)

M/s. Viiking Technology and Trade Pvt. Ltd., 604-605, 6th Floor, Gateway Plaza, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076
(Appellant)

Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AAACJ9535E
(Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CA
Revenue by Ms. Samatha , Sr. AR
Date of Hearing 21/07/2020
Date of Pronouncement 27/07/2020

O R D E R 

PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in ITA No.4450/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-48/I.T.227/DCCC-2(1)/2015-16 dated 15/11/2017 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/03/2015 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1),Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before us by 172 days. We find that the Director of the assessee company has filed affidavit dated 21/01/2020 stating the reason that the key managerial personnel of the company resigned form the office on 03/10/2017 and the said position was vacant till 01/07/2018. It was affirmed that the erstwhile key management personnel , who left the service, was in-charge of the taxation matters of the assessee company and later on 02/07/2018 a new person was appointed in that place and accordingly, pending appeal to be filed before the Tribunal was noticed by the new person and immediately appeal was filed by the assessee company. We find that assessee had duly substantiated the delay in filing of appeal and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit and appropriate to condone the delay of 172 days by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji reported in 167 ITR 471 and admit the appeal for adjudication. 

3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the disallowance made on account of unverifiable purchases to the tune of Rs.9,78,420/- in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is engaged in the business of retail stores under the name and style of “One retail”. The assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 30/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 15/10/2011 assessing total loss of Rs.3,14,07,803/-. Later, this assessment was sought to be revised by the ld. Administrative CIT vide order u/s.263 of the Act dated 30/03/2014 wherein the assessment framed on 15/10/2011 was set aside by making the observation that the issue of claim of purchases made by the assessee from M/s. United Marketing in the sum of Rs.9,78,420/- was not correct and the same requires to be disallowed. For the sake of convenience, the order passed by the ld. Administrative CIT on 30/03/2014 u/s.263 of the Act is being reproduced herein:-

To know more in details find the attachment file